Bon Jovi are completely unoriginal - you could argue their sound had already been done by the likes of Def Lep, Motley Crew etc. They are good at what they do but have very little critical acclaim. Its soft rock - sure it good every so often, but its a bit like eating a Big Mac. You enjoy it for the moment, but once finished, you feel empty inside.

For the sake of argument, EVEN if Bon Jovi's sound IS un-original, that doesn't take away from their artistic merit.

In terms of rock music, complete originality/ innovation is OVERRATED. They may have had peers that did similar style of music or borrowed from the past, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they took what they know and made it into their own discernible sound (and yes Bon Jovi has a discernible sound).

Bands such as the The Who, Jeff Beck Group, Led Zeppelin, Cream, etc... (even Hendrix) are all considered "innovators" but their sounds were somewhat similar to each other when they came out b/c all of them borrowed heavily from the blues and each other. So the whole idea of "originality" is a little overrated and over-emphasized IMO.

ALSO, you may feel that way about the Bon Jovi but there are millions of fans world-wide that consider the Bon Jovi to be more than a musical/ artistic Big Mac. Many fans who over the last 15 years have been fulfilled by that band's music. What you're saying is your subjective assessment, clouded by the media's elitist attitude.

What you're saying is your subjective assessment, clouded by the media's elitist attitude.

Ultimately every post made is their subjective assessment. Your view of Bon Jovi is your subjective assessment. Everyone is entitled to it - am not argueing that.

Secondly, speaking on behalf of myself, I can confirm to you that I
have never read any media articles about Bon Jovi. Thirdly, I can also confirm even if I had, I am quite capable of making up my own mind about how I feel about a band rather than what some form of media is telling me what I should feel. Its quite astounding that you have come to the conclusion that because I think of Bon Jovi's music is as memorable as .. god.. I don't know.. something I ate last week while rushing to the dogs... I am under the spell of the media's perception of Bon Jovi.

I think their music in general is akin to Status Quo. Within a few cords, you know exactly who it is. There are millions of people who bought Backstreet Boy records. Good for them if they like that kind of thing. It doesn't mean however, that they are any good critically. Commercially sure.. but you know, with a good marketing team behind anything, you can sell ice to eskimos. There is a market for everything.. one glance at the items on sale on Ebay confirms that.

If people are trying to compare Bon Jovi to U2, then it cannot be done on musical grounds. In my opinion (like everything in this post is) Bon Jovi have come no where near reinventing themselves as U2 have. The only band that has done to such a scale is the Beatles (probably larger scale - less than 7 years from Love Me Do to I am the Walrus). Bon Jovi members cutting their hair is part of reinvention? Oh please.. superficial. If U2 wore black clothes for first 10 years of their career and then started wearing red shirts with orange spots, does this count as a reinvention?

Muscially.. you know, i can't find any difference between Bon Jovi from 1986 to Bon Jovi in the '90s and today. In fact, the only difference is they have got worse. Again, my opinion, which has not been based or corrupted by any media, but purely based on having to listen to them.

Ultimately every post made is their subjective assessment. Your view of Bon Jovi is your subjective assessment. Everyone is entitled to it - am not argueing that.

Wrong. I think? I don't know who you are addressing or what you are talking about when referring to subjective assessments. Either way, every post made isn't a subjective assessment. jick gave examples of what the members of the Bon Jovi do in their free time outside of the band. All of it involved some form artistic expression (many of those examples being actual work that can be accessed by the public). I said they were artists in the truest sense. An artist is defined as:

1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.

3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.

The members of Bon Jovi fit with in the context of the definition. How is that subjective? Of course people can make jokes at the expense of the Bon Jovi, but how is my assessment subjective? I think not.

Quote:

Secondly, speaking on behalf of myself, I can confirm to you that I
have never read any media articles about Bon Jovi. Thirdly, I can also confirm even if I had, I am quite capable of making up my own mind about how I feel about a band rather than what some form of media is telling me what I should feel. Its quite astounding that you have come to the conclusion that because I think of Bon Jovi's music is as memorable as .. god.. I don't know.. something I ate last week while rushing to the dogs... I am under the spell of the media's perception of Bon Jovi.

So have you listened to every Bon Jovi record released. Listened to every song on the album (like seriously listen as some U2 fans tell people in order to "get" U2 or HTDAAB). I guess you have, in order to have made the claims that you made about unfulfilling Big Macs and claims of un-originality. I mean you claim to have not read any article about the Bon Jovi and I assume you have never watched or listened to a program/ news item on the Bon Jovi either. Ooooooookay.

Quote:

I think their music in general is akin to Status Quo. Within a few cords, you know exactly who it is. There are millions of people who bought Backstreet Boy records. Good for them if they like that kind of thing. It doesn't mean however, that they are any good critically. Commercially sure.. but you know, with a good marketing team behind anything, you can sell ice to eskimos. There is a market for everything.. one glance at the items on sale on Ebay confirms that.

Let me say something that I should have said before. An artist doesn't necessarily have to be "original" in order to be defined as an artist. I've also talked about the idea of "originality" in rock music before. People overrate the idea of originality in music so much. True artistic originality in rock is rare.

Also if you can hear a few chords from the Bon Jovi and tell who they are, that must mean something. I mean if you can tell something like that so easily then they must have have done something original/ distinct on their own or you would be confusing them with Def Lepoard, right?

Quote:

If people are trying to compare Bon Jovi to U2, then it cannot be done on musical grounds. In my opinion (like everything in this post is) Bon Jovi have come no where near reinventing themselves as U2 have. The only band that has done to such a scale is the Beatles (probably larger scale - less than 7 years from Love Me Do to I am the Walrus). Bon Jovi members cutting their hair is part of reinvention? Oh please.. superficial. If U2 wore black clothes for first 10 years of their career and then started wearing red shirts with orange spots, does this count as a reinvention?

Muscially.. you know, i can't find any difference between Bon Jovi from 1986 to Bon Jovi in the '90s and today. In fact, the only difference is they have got worse. Again, my opinion, which has not been based or corrupted by any media, but purely based on having to listen to them.

U2's re-invention was just as much about image as it was the music. Same with the Beatles and guys like Bowie. For a rock star, changing one's image is very important for career viability in the rock scene. Musically, Bon Jovi has added more electronic elements/ modern studio innovations into their music. Case in point. Crush. Again, are the things that they do totally original? No, but that doesn't take away their rightful claim to the title of artist.

Few bands embodied the era of pop-metal like Bon Jovi. By merging Def Leppard's loud but tuneful metal with Bruce Springsteen's working-class sensibilities, the New Jersey-based quintet developed an ingratiatingly melodic and professional variation of hard rock — one that appealed as much to teenagers as to housewives.

Not only are they artists, but they do have something "original" or at the least different going for them.

You know, maybe I am getting lost in the depths of these posts but am trying to figure out what the members of Bon Jovi do while out of the band have anything to do with U2/trying to justify the comparisons with U2? Am really lost with that - have tried to read back through various points and either its me or you guys have gone to extreme lengths to proof a point I still have not got.

Regarding listening to all Bon Jovi records, nope I havent. I listened to their first few albums and bar one or two songs, I thought it was not for me. Anything I've heard since does nothing for me - the big mac comment I completely stand by. Similarly does that mean to not like any band or artist, you have to go through their whole back catalog to come to that conclusion? I best buy all Britney Spears albums, Megadeth albums, boy band albums etc then. Ooooookayyyyy.

Originality in my eyes is not over-rated. You talk about art - what exactly is art? Creatintg something new or rehashing something that has been done before? And thats where any attempt at comparisons with U2 start and end. Bon Jovi have never re-invented themselves musically. If you think they have fine. For me they sound exactly the same as they did 20 years ago - in fact worse as they seem to continuously attempt to play the rock balled mode which always seems to sell but never has any credibility (something aerosmith seem to have perfected).

In most cases yep I can tell a bon jovi song within first few cords. Does that mean they have a unique sound.. sure.. but its a unique sound built on sounds that have been done before. On a general basis, you can group Bon Jovi with the likes of Def Leppard, soft rock - whatever you want to call it. With U2, sure, they have some soft rock songs but they also cross a lot of other genres that Bon Jovi can only dream of.

People like you and Jick are talking about Bon Jovi's reinvention like it was a complete about turn. It wasn't. Sure, they added some new instruments and got a hair cut, but thats where it ended. Generally their music continued along the same path. U2 have done heavy euro disco beats with some of the songs on Pop and Zooropa, ambient blurr with Passengers, industrial dark music with Achtung Baby, and returned with panoramic landscape sounds of UF with ATYCLB (album I don't really like) and HTDAAB (album I do like). Thats in the last 14 years. Maybe I am missing something in Bon Jovi's music, but I cannot see the diversity or reinvention to that scale, in anything Bon Jovi have done in the last 15 years. If they do, then I'll hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong.

Am not argueing Bon Jovi aren't artists. That has never been my arguement. My point is that they are not comparable with U2 or reinvented themselves anywhere near the scale or level U2 did.

Wow! How could this veer so much off-topic to be a Bon Jovi vs. U2 thread? Let's take the history of this thread.

Bon Jovi was used only as an example to contrast with U2. Bon Jovi had one comeback, while U2 is going on their second.

Why people get so uneasy about U2 and Bon Jovi mentioned in the same sentence is beyond me. You don't have to get so defensive. I never said Bon Jovi are better than U2 anyway, and even if I did - it's only an opinion.

You can argue about reinvention forever, but if you are not familiar with the entire back catalogue and history of Bon Jovi, your argument is just as good as a grain of salt.

Musical comparisons to Def Leppard, Motley Crue etc. are just that - comparisons. The Big Mac analogy is just that also - an analogy. They are all valid if backed by good reasons.

My U2 / Bon Jovi comparisons are simple. I based it on commercial success, and the length of time they have maintained such. Bon Jovi's 1986 album, Slippery When Wet was a massive seller. U2's 1987 album, The Joshua Tree, was a massive seller. After that they experienced great successes commercially but also some flops. Then Bon Jovi made a "comeback" with It's My Life/ Crush sometime `99/`00. U2 made a "comeback" with Beautiful Day/ ATYCLB in `00/`01. Their commercial pattern is comparable. Both U2 and Bon Jovi have been around the same 14 year stretch. Both bands have sold over 100 million records worldwide. So my basis of comparison is the sales, not the music. If you want to talk about music, Bon Jovi are closer to Def Leppard while U2 are closer to Echo And The Bunnymen or The Killers. But those musical comparisons aren't the order of the dy, just commercial comparisons.

But after ATYCLB, U2 fell a notch with the pre-sale fiasco but they are making their second comeback thanks to the Mullen Apology. Bon Jovi, on the other hand, have released one commercial disappointment after another and have never comeback after their first comeback. So commercially, both bands have started to take separate roads nowadays.

Thats all fair enough. From the point of using another band as an example, REM is much better. With Out of Time and Automatic for the People, you could equally say was REM's point of reinvention. REM would also be a much better example due to their cross over appeal.

Btw, REM have had an amazing amount of singles. Shiny happy people is not that great granted. Everybody hurts is REM's One.

Anyway, comparisons are all subjective. I just don't think your example of Bon Jovi was a good one. Thats all!

Originally posted by Party Boy Thats all fair enough. From the point of using another band as an example, REM is much better. With Out of Time and Automatic for the People, you could equally say was REM's point of reinvention. REM would also be a much better example due to their cross over appeal.

Btw, REM have had an amazing amount of singles. Shiny happy people is not that great granted. Everybody hurts is REM's One.

Anyway, comparisons are all subjective. I just don't think your example of Bon Jovi was a good one. Thats all!

My comparisons are really geared more towards the commercial success patterns of both Bon Jovi and U2. Whether Keep The Faith is reinvention to you or not, it was reinvention to the Bon Jovi fans who still accepted it with open arms. And even if it wasn't reinvention to you, it still had a similar commercial success pattern to Achtung Baby. So my comparison will always be valid in that sense. This thread is about comebacks, not about artistic reinvention. And comebacks that are primarily commercial in nature.

um not here in the us, keep the faith went double platium atchuing is 8 times platium. so no thier not on then same commercal pattern. bon jovi was a good band talened to enoguh to survive its limited genre. u2 is so much more then that. mabey since i'm just going by u2 numbers is why i;m not agreeing with what your saying. i;ve read alot about music and studyed it, and no ever talks about keep the fath and nay matter as far being "classic". good yes. not anything like AB.

Originally posted by allbecauseofu2 um not here in the us, keep the faith went double platium atchuing is 8 times platium. so no thier not on then same commercal pattern. bon jovi was a good band talened to enoguh to survive its limited genre. u2 is so much more then that. mabey since i'm just going by u2 numbers is why i;m not agreeing with what your saying. i;ve read alot about music and studyed it, and no ever talks about keep the fath and nay matter as far being "classic". good yes. not anything like AB.

Always remember, U2 have a standard that is all unto themselves.

Double platinum is to Bon Jovi what Achtung sales is to U2. I'm even aware that ATYCLB is 4x platinum while Crush is two times platinum.

But this is a day and age where platinum is no given for a pop/rock band.

I really wish the people of Interference could read grey. Not everything is fucking black and white. Is the subtle humour and sarcasm so subtle that is requires constant explanation? Seems so.

Learn that our Jick is a mixed bag. There is a combination of humour, sarcasm and genuine thought in his posts. Either learn that it is not all the same all the way through his replies and posts, or accept that there is things in there you just dont get. Please do one or the other and stop this years old shit from going on and fucking on.